STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH Vs. RAVINDER KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS application has been filed by the State under Section 5 of the Limitation Act praying for condonation of delay in filing review petition against the judgment of this Court dated 27th April, 2007 in CWP No. 569 of 2001, titled Ravinder Kumar V. State of H.P. and Ors. whereby the petition filed by the Respondent was allowed and this Court issued directions to the State to acquire the land, the subject matter of the writ petition on the allegations in the petition as also taking into consideration the admission of the State that the land was under its occupation without acquisition. The review petition is barred by 1157 days that is to say three years and sixty two days. The reason for instituting the review after such a long lapse of time is sought to be explained by advancing the following reasons:

(2.) THIS application has been opposed by the Respondent on a number of grounds. The Respondent questions the bonafides of the State more especially in view of the admissions made in the writ petition inter -alia that the State has been in adverse possession of this land. The entirety of the plea of the State is that the Respondent has been guilty of practising fraud/active misrepresentation of facts before the Court in order to obtain an unfair advantage. In these circumstances, it is urged that this Court can itself exercise powers of review to undo injustice and this exercise does not attract the provisions of the Limitation Act.

(3.) THE submission is that even if there is no power of review, the concealment of facts is so blatant that the Court can exercise its powers suo motu for recalling the order passed by it. Three more decisions on which reliance has been placed may be noticed. In N. Khosla V. Rajlamshmi (dead) and Ors. (2006) 3 SCC 605 the Court again reiterated this basic principle that fraud avoids all judicial acts, a decree obtained by playing fraud is a nullity and it can be challenged in any proceedings. In Hamza Haji V. State of Kerala and Anr. (2006) 7 SCC 416 the Court considered in extenso the meaning of what constitutes fraud. It held: